You got it all backward comrade. Libya was just fine before France and the US intervened. Sure the infrastructure and liberties were not there, but that's kinda the theme of the region.
Actually Libya was going on a "revolution" as Gaddafi was delegating his powers to his son who was interested in liberalizing the economy , building infrastructure and giving people more freedom.
It all went downhill and now it's a hotbed for ISIS and friends.
Here is a link to the civil war (Arab spring) before the involvement of other countries. I can find more if needed.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/happening...
I know because I live in Tunisia and the previous president did authorize moving arms to rebels through the country.
Don't even try not to own up to that fact. Everyone who has been counting the piles of smoking rubble the US and its allies leave around the place, know just how much nicer things were before Americans decided to drop bombs on people they think the world doesn't care about.
The direct, immediate consequences (that is: the current state) have to be attributed to the intervention. Some consider the belief "hey, we'll just bomb it and everybody will love each other and it'll be great" naivete bordering on retardation, but I think "we really didn't know any better" has to be ruled out after repeated use. At some point even a toddler learns not to put their hand on the hot stove, unless pain is their goal.
> On 19 February, several days after the conflict began, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi announced the creation of a commission of inquiry into the violence, chaired by a Libyan judge, as reported on state television. He stated that the commission was intended to be "for members of Libyan and foreign organizations of human rights" and that it will "investigate the circumstances and events that have caused many victims."[137] Caricature of Gaddafi, Al Bayda, April 2011
> Towards the end of February, it was reported that the Gaddafi government had suppressed protests in Tripoli by distributing automobiles, money and weapons for hired followers to drive around Tripoli and attack people showing signs of dissent.[182] In Tripoli, "death squads" of mercenaries and Revolutionary Committees members reportedly patrolled the streets and shot people who tried to take the dead off the streets or gather in groups.[183] The International Federation for Human Rights concluded on 24 February that Gaddafi was implementing a scorched earth strategy. The organization stated that "It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterized as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."[184]
> In May 2011, International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo estimated that 500–700 people were killed by security forces in February 2011, before the rebels took up arms. According to Moreno-Ocampo, "shooting at protesters was systematic".[185]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
This was getting worse before NATO tried to intervene.
If you want to know what happens when the world does not interfere, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_killing_of_Bengali_intell...
> Deaths 1,111
That's kind of the point. Was Gaddhafi a great guy? I don't think so. Was he in control? Yeah. Was Libya, and, by extension, the region stable with him in control? Yeah. Did we destabilize the region and create the circumstances for ISIS to flourish, open chattel slavery etc? Yeah. Was that predictable? Yeah, very much so.
I tend to see dictators like Gaddhafi more like a necessary evil. Kind of like an amputation to save the whole. Yes, it sucks losing your foot. But losing your life sucks a whole lot more. The NATO approach is ostensibly "we can't accept this patient losing a foot, and if the patient dies, then so be it, at least we tried to to do the right thing™".
It rarely works, and at some point I question whether the stated goal is really the intention or the -often witnessed- side-effects of regional destabilization, endless civil wars etc are the actual intended effect. That would change two things: a) the missions would be successful, explaining why we're repeating them with the same play book time and time again and b) we don't have to assume that the tens of thousands of analysts we're paying to analyze things and make smart plans are imbeciles, incapable of learning from the past.
I am not sure how he destroyed Syria. The whole resistance was part of the Arab Spring. It was a mixture of unhappiness with the dictatorship and the food scarcity outside of the cities. The involvement from outside powers came in very late and mostly were half hearted approaches (except the Russians).
Obama is not perfect, and during his reign, journalism and whistleblowers were affected a lot. He also had other issues but these were not part of them.